Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Harman Sleuths at Work


Exclusive Cartoon by Howard Woodall. Click to enlarge.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow Iain, you really are lucky to have the world exclusive of that cartoon. I'm sure the press will be knocking at your door for such cutting satire.

Johnny Norfolk said...

I think Cameron was correct to bring Browns integrity into question. As soon as Brown knew the law of the land had been broken it was his duty as leader to report the matter to the police.

This he has failed to do. This delay could give the party more time to cover up more issues.

I think the Labour party and government has a lot to answer for and they are playing for time.

Verity said...

V good!

jonathan hemlock said...

Iain:

Whilst this is a very good cartoon, there isn't much point in posting any "cutting edge" comments that have a very short life, if you are then going to impose a rather slow Comment Moderation on them.

When things start happening in politics, they happen PDQ.

If the NuLab trolls and their fellow travellers post bleedin' stupid comments, let Verity deal with them.

However, since I'm here, can I draw your late-night / time shifted readers attention to my latest bit of Photoshopping:

Harriet Harman says ‘I’m sure Gordon will stand by me’

Bayleaf said...

"None so blind as those that won't see" 1852, E. Fitzgerald.

jailhouselawyer said...

Very amusing cartoon.

The Daily Telegraph is reporting: "Gordon Brown has ordered an investigation into the finances of the property developer who gave Labour illegal donations of more than £670,000".

Assuming that the report is accurate, I wonder upon what lawful authority the PM is acting? I am not aware of any law which allows the Executive to conduct an inquiry into a citizen's finances.

jonathan hemlock said...

Iain, old chap,

You're a lucky fellow.

Not only do you have the late-night comments of Johnny Norfolk, Verity and some village idiot from the Lake District, but you also have the acerbit wit of an anonymong at 11.41 pm.

How do you do it?

Anonymous said...

Bayleaf said -

"None so blind as those that won't see" 1852, E. Fitzgerald.

"Never stopped me from a grope." 2007, D. Blunkett.

tachybaptus said...

Jonathan Hemlock said:

'... my latest bit of Photoshopping.'

Bloody hell, man, I could have done that better with Windows Paint. Get a grip, there's a tyranny here to overthrow.

Atlas shrugged said...

Just blind is simply not good enough.

For this assignment to be correctly fulfilled. It is vital that no sign of free thinking detectable brain activity can be allowed to exist in the employee's mind. This could be difficult, especially if they need to be alive at the time.

So

My best advice for Harriet would be. To do what the government always does when its in a very dark deep hole.

Simply do the usual grubby deal with the BBC. Get them to quickly send a few dozen of their most generously bribed/sorry waged investigative journalists round to "help out".

Then the public will never find out the real truth about anything important.

Wait a few days more so the BBC can come up with some silly, insane nonsense about say, us all drowning from MMGW within a year.

(Just to frighten the silly fucks, back in line for a night or two, you understand?)

Then back to business as usual, my dear.

jonathan hemlock said...

Tachybaptus:

I'm impressed....I didn't know that ducks could use computers....

Johnny Norfolk said...

I agree with JH. Lets have quick postings with Iain editing the nutters.

Anonymous said...

I have already through the comments in another article suggested that Hilary Benns team should have perhaps spotted the donation to their challenger, and eventual victors campaign.

It now is being suggested that Jay suspected Abrahams wanted to back two candidates, which is why they insisted on the donation being in his name.

Makes it even stranger, having suspected this, that they didn't do anything when they saw the donation to Harman recorded from Kidd - wasn't it her donation that Jay returned?

Are we seriously to believe, that when the Benn team suspected a donor might back 2 candidates, they didn't have a look to see when the donations were recorded - or even mention it to the opposition.

The BBC quotes Hilary Benns spokesman saying "we returned the chequk", so it was more than just a suggestion about going through a 3rd party, a cheque was received and returned, only to be accepted when it was directly from Abraham.

If the cheque was from Kidd, they must have seen that their concern about backing 2 horses had come to fruition.

What did they do about it?